| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/29/2006 1:50:06 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Enough noise from this damn thing. |
Posted on 04/27/2006 8:01:57 AM PDT by Tribune7
I’m happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism — indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters. :-)
(Excerpt) Read more at uncommondescent.com ...
"Depends on if you think someone's interpretation of an aspect of the Bible is right, or that God is going to grade you on your understanding of cosmology."
Interpretation of the bible is always used to create doubt. The bible (NT) can be traced back to the original texts which were written, in many cases, by the witnesses of events. Interpretation really isnt an issue as hundreds of scholars have been involved with recent translations without significant changes. We are supposed to mistrust the biblical scholars translation but encourged to trust the modern liberals translation.
How does cosmology have anything to do with this? Again, if you read the bible its pretty clear what God is going to grade us on.
...and the "mind boggling hostility" of the anti-evolutionists on this thread has somehow escaped your attention? Or do you merely have a double standard?
Don't know. Not into climatology. Or you an expert on the science from listening to Rush Limbaugh?
Yes, your false conclusions on this point, most likely due to your inability to have facts break through your prejudices and presumptions, have long been noted.
Then you are knowingly wrong.
As have yours.
Why embarrassing? Ann gets her advice from the dean of clown college, and that is supposed to embarrass us?
The people who should be embarrassed are those whose God lives in the gaps -- an incredible shrinking God.
Check your email.
Someone said "When I read Darwin I knew I was in the presence of a genius. When I read Johnson, I knew I was in the presence of a lawyer".
He should not only be stopped, he should be locked up for attempted child abuse.
As long as he sticks to publishing, he's protected by the First Amendment.
I have advocated on other threads that the Dover School Board should have been impeached for high crimes by the Pa. Legislature (to wit: State law mandates that the school boards provide for science education, the Dover Board was attempting to smuggle non-science into science class, therefore they are guilty of misfeasance (or is it malfeasance?)).
That should also have been sued, as individuals, for fraud. I'm not sure whether simply lying to children constitutes abuse in the legal sense.
The advantages to taking these routes are 1) conviction on high crimes carries a life time ban on holding public office, and 2) it applies to other frauds like Afrocentric history and Ebonics, where there is no 1st Amendment issue.
Thanks.
svcw, I would like you to observe just how childish, bitter, vindictive, and just plain false this claim is. (e.g. "evo-freaks", "Evo and Butthead", etc.)
I invite you to join any of the "crevo" threads, where you will see stark examples of quite a few Freepers who are unfortunately not only science illiterate, but very proud of the fact, and who exhibit far more hyperemotional belligerence than those whom they accuse.
How amusing. Your fundamentalist pals beat up someone for his beliefs, and then you accuse him of doing it to himself.
"...and the "mind boggling hostility" of the anti-evolutionists on this thread has somehow escaped your attention? Or do you merely have a double standard?"
I probably do have a double standard. I admit I'm biased, but where have I been hostile? Where have other anti-evolutionists been hostile?
I can show examples of hostility from the pro muck to germ to snake to bird to ape to human crowd. This thread has been fairly civil. Others on this general topic get downright nasty.
Some believe the the universe can be understood down to the smallest fragment of an atom. I personally believe the universe is too vast for our measly little brains to comprehend fully.
There's evidence showing the former, and a lack of same showing the latter.
It never ceases to amaze me just how consistently you can be so deeply wrong.
So, do you or do you not believe in the existence of Ann Coulter?
I can see your posts are at about the usual intelligence level.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.